Death-penalty trial to begin after tricky process of selecting Franklin County jury

Monday

Jun 12, 2017 at 12:01 AMJun 12, 2017 at 5:40 AM

John Futty The Columbus Dispatch @johnfutty

When attorneys questioned a 72-year-old man during jury selection for Franklin County's first death-penalty trial in three years, he said there was a time when he found himself at odds with his strong opposition to taking a human life.

"When I was a young man, I had some pretty idealistic beliefs," the Northwest Side man said. "I told myself I could never take a life under any circumstances and so on, and then I was drafted.

"The day I stepped off the airplane on the Vietnamese soil, I said, 'I'll do whatever it takes to get back home.' ... I sort of had a letdown of my own viewpoint of myself, I guess."

But under no circumstances, he said, could he sign a verdict form to recommend a death sentence.

The man was excused from being part of the jury pool.

Join the conversation at Facebook.com/columbusdispatch and connect with us on Twitter @DispatchAlerts

In all, 17 people were excused during the first phase of jury selection for the trial of Lincoln S. Rutledge, who is accused of fatally shooting a Columbus police officer during a SWAT standoff at his Clintonville apartment 14 months ago.

On Friday, the 52 people who made it through the first phase were narrowed to 12 jurors (seven men and five women) and four alternates.

The trial, which could take as long as two weeks, is scheduled to begin with opening statements this morning.

Jury selection for a death-penalty case is unique because it requires potential jurors to discuss their views on the ultimate punishment before hearing any evidence, at a time when the defendant is presumed innocent.

Jefferson Liston, one of Rutledge's attorneys, told potential jurors that the process puts the defense in "an uncomfortable position."

The process is necessary to eliminate jurors whose position on the death penalty, whether for or against, is so strong that they can't follow Ohio law regarding the appropriate use of the penalty.

Under the law, if the jurors convict Rutledge of aggravated murder with death specifications in the slaying of Officer Steven Smith, they must participate in a sentencing phase during which the defense will present what are called mitigating factors.

If the jurors decide that the mitigating factors — such as mental illness or a traumatic childhood — outweigh the crime's aggravating circumstances, the law instructs them that a death sentence is off the table. At that point, they must recommend a life sentence either without the chance of parole or with the possibility of parole after 25 or 30 years.

If the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating factors, the law says the jurors must recommend death.

A decision must be unanimous.

Assistant Prosecutors Daniel Hogan and Warren Edwards used a chart to explain the death-penalty law and the weighing process to prospective jurors, who were brought into the courtroom in groups of six.

"There are people who have strong feelings against the taking of another life," said Common Pleas Judge Mark Serrott, who is presiding over the trial, his first death-penalty case. "You also don't want someone on the jury who would automatically impose death for anyone convicted of murder."

Nearly all of the people who were eliminated in the first phase were strong death-penalty opponents. They included an ordained minister who wrote on a questionnaire supplied to the panelists that only God should decide when someone dies.

Others, however, were retained after telling the judge and attorneys that, despite their strong feelings about the death penalty, they could follow the law in deciding whether to impose it. They included a woman who said she is so uncomfortable with the death penalty that she probably would be forever tormented if she signed a verdict for death.

The judge also allowed a current Columbus police officer and a former Ohio state trooper to be retained after the first phase, although neither ultimately was seated on the jury.

"I think I've been pretty even-handed," Serrott said.

Douglas Berman, a professor at Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law and an expert on capital punishment, said there are plenty of concerns about finding jurors who truly will follow the death-penalty sentencing process and about whether discussing possible punishments in advance is fair to the defendant.

"But I struggle to figure out how you can do it any other way," he said.

The act of weighing mitigating factors against aggravating circumstances in deciding life or death "doesn't lend itself to an easy or predictable adjudication process," Berman said. "It becomes a moral rather than a legal judgment."

The potential jurors who sat in Serrott's courtroom last week for questioning about the process impressed the judge with what they were willing to share, particularly the Vietnam veteran.

"It's what's great about our jury system," the judge said. "You bring strangers together from all walks of life to talk about weighty, serious matters that all of us should think about.

"I was so impressed with their openness, their candor, their thoughtfulness and the seriousness with which they're approaching this."

jfutty@dispatch.com

@johnfutty

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.